Nicole
Pollard and Jeff McAllister are the parents of C.E.M., who is
now eight years old. After Nicole's arrest on
drug-related charges, Jeff sought to modify a custody decree
to obtain sole legal custody of C.E.M. Nicole filed an
application for contempt, alleging Jeff denied her visitation
on several occasions. The district court dismissed
Nicole's application and granted Jeff's modification
request. Nicole appeals the district court's rulings. We
are without jurisdiction to consider the district court's
dismissal of her contempt application because the notice of
appeal is not timely as to that ruling. And because Jeff met
his substantial burden regarding modification, we affirm the
district court's order modifying the custody decree.

I.
Facts and Prior Proceedings

Nicole
and Jeff entered into a relationship in 2007. They had one
child together, C.E.M., who was born in September 2009. The
parties separated in November 2011. In the year leading up to
the separation, Nicole struggled with abusing substances-both
methamphetamine and alcohol. The Iowa Department of Human
Services (DHS) intervened and required Nicole to leave the
family home for three months. While Nicole was away, Jeff
acted as the primary caretaker for C.E.M. and Nicole's
son from a prior relationship.

Jeff
filed a petition to establish custody in December 2011. At
the time of trial on October 3, 2012, Nicole had criminal
charges pending for operating while intoxicated, third
offense, [1] and she had missed several visits with
C.E.M. At trial, Jeff asked the district court to award him
sole legal custody. In its October 17, 2012 decree, the
district court denied Jeff's request because he had not
asked for sole legal custody in his petition. But the court
also reasoned the facts did not warrant such an award:

Nicole is receiving counseling for her substance abuse issues
and appears to be trying to get her life back on track . . .
. The [c]ourt believes fundamentally that Nicole can be a
suitable caregiver for [C.E.M.] and that her desire to
provide that care and be a part of [C.E.M.'s] life is
genuine.

Citing
Jeff's greater stability, as well as the poor
communication between Jeff and Nicole, the court awarded
physical care of C.E.M. to Jeff.

On
February 19, 2016, Nicole was arrested for driving while
barred, operating while intoxicated, possession of
methamphetamine, and possession of marijuana. C.E.M. was in
Nicole's care that day but was not with her mother at the
time of arrest. Nicole testified she was stopped by the
police while driving to the home of a friend who had agreed
to drive C.E.M. home from the roller skating rink. Jeff found
out about the arrest two days later when he picked C.E.M. up
from her visit. The DHS investigated the matter and, although
case workers suspected Nicole was abusing methamphetamine,
they concluded C.E.M. had not been directly harmed or placed
at risk of harm by Nicole's actions. A hair test
indicated C.E.M. had not been exposed to illegal substances.

Nicole's
arrest prompted Jeff to file an application for custody
modification and an application to suspend visitation in
early March 2016. The district court held a hearing on
Jeff's application to suspend visitation on April 1. In
its ruling denying Jeff's request, the court considered
the DHS investigation and observed Nicole "has obtained
an evaluation and is participating in counseling. She is
being screened by [the Department of Correctional Services]
for alcohol and drug use and her tests have thus far come
back negative." The court concluded: "This ruling
is not intended to have precedential effect at trial, when
[Jeff] will have an opportunity to present his full case on
the merits."

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;On July
11, 2016, Nicole filed a motion asking the court to find Jeff
in contempt of the October 2012 decree, alleging Jeff
withheld visitation on multiple dates between January 2016
and July 2016.[2] Jeff denied interfering with Nicole's
visitation. Instead, he contended Nicole had failed to
exercise visitation and failed to follow the decree and he
"had a reasonable belief that [Nicole] was under the
...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.